Here’s environmentalist Bill McKibben at his best, pointing out that we should shelve the resentment and cynicism that we feel for corruption in Congress, and start to show how we truly feel: Angry. He writes, “We’ve reached the point where we’re unfazed by things that should shake us to the core.”

According to James Hansen, the government’s premier climate scientist, tapping Canada’s tar sands for the Keystone pipeline would, in the end, essentially mean “game over for the climate.” So how could Speaker of the House John Boehner insist that the Keystone approval decision be sped up? Well, he’s gotten $1,111,080 from the fossil-fuel industry during his tenure. His Senate counterpart Mitch McConnell, who shepherded the bill through his chamber, has raked in $1,277,208 in the course of his tenure in Washington.

McKibben refers to cynicism as “a sucker’s game.” Until we demonstrate how truly outraged we are, we’ll get exactly the degree of change we deserve: none. As Frederick Douglass reminds us, “Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.”

Related posts:

• The White House Goes Solar
• Energy Consumption, Economics, and Environmentalism
• Where is Cap & Trade Legislation Now?
• Will the U.S. Climate Bill Make it Through the Senate?
• Bipartisan Group of Senators Introduce Renewable Electricity Standard

Bill Moore, editor of EVWorld.com has written a splendid article on the failure of certain of the early electric vehicle companies, in which he points out:

Breaking into the automotive business can be relatively easy; making a success of it is pretty damned near impossible, regardless of what type of propulsion system you favor: ICE-age or otherwise; and it’s especially tough if you decide to go electric. Beyond this, the reasons for individual failures are myriad and multiple: right product, wrong time, wrong product; wrong time, etc. Management missteps, unrealistic investor expectations and impatience, government responsiveness, inept marketing, unanticipated technical setbacks, product shortcomings, public resistance to change: the list is long.

I don’t dispute any of this, but let’s look at the subject from a “big picture” perspective. As a country, we’re still married to fossil fuels, and we’re doing essentially nothing about it In particular, we have no energy policy. Hell, we’re about to build an oil pipeline, the Keystone XL, right through the middle of the continent, one that may be unnecessary and that even some oil companies think is overpriced.

At the same time, we don’t have an iota of horsepower in Congress examining the big ideas. If I (or you) were there, we’d be saying:

Here’s a list of major reasons (I’ve left out the minor ones) to phase out fossil fuels aggressively:

• National security / terrorism

• Health / lung disease

• Global climate change, ocean acidification and other ecological disasters

• Skyrocketing / crippling debt

• War which we can’t afford, and leave countless dead and wounded

• Peak oil, coupled with burgeoning urban/consumer populations globally

You can argue about the relative importance of each of these, but for my money, we’ve spent enough time arguing about this garbage already. Now the time has come for action, and we’re going to take it, regardless of what the oil companies say. We have a responsibility at this time and place in history, and by God, we’re going to live up to it.

Gullible guy that I am, I still believe that someone in a position of power will ask me to draft a plan that phases fossil fuels out forcibly over the next 25 years, and eliminates them completely by 2050. As always, I’ll be happy to serve.

Related posts:

• Insight into Dell’s Sustainability Initiatives
• With oil at $65 will renewables lose steam?
• What is the Downside to Environmentalism?
• India May Make CSR Spending Mandatory
• Big Oil’s Collective Responsibility

As the last days of the year wind down, Congress scurries around to finish its unfinished business, almost always with "surprises" for the regulated community. 

The House appropriations committee issued a final version of the 2012 Omnibus spending bill last week.  It has, of course, significant implications for energy and environment spending, particularly spending related to climate change.

The omnibus bill cuts spending on climate change programs, prohibits the appointment of a Federal "Climate Change Czar" and cuts spending on climate change research.

Most stunning, of course, are changes to EPA funding.  The summary of the omnibus bill issued by the House appropriations committee states that EPA funding has been reduced by almost 19% in 2011:

The conference agreement funds EPA at $8.4 billion, which is a $233 million reduction below the FY 2011 enacted level and $524 million below the President’s request. Overall, funding for EPA has been reduced by $1.8 billion (-18.4%) in calendar year 2011.

The conference agreement cuts $14 million (-6%) in clean air and climate research programs; $12 million (-9.5%) in EPA’s regulatory development office; and $14 million (-5%) to air regulatory programs. In addition, the bill includes:

• A 33% reduction to the EPA Administrator’s immediate office;
• A $101 million reduction for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which received $6 billion in “stimulus” funding;
•  A $78 million reduction for EPA operations/administration, which includes $41 million
• (-5%) in cuts to EPA’s regulatory programs;
• A $14 million (-6.2%) reduction for uncoordinated climate and other air research; and
•  An elimination of $4 million in funding that EPA has used to delay the processing of Appalachian mining permits.

These are some other provisions in the omnibus bill that impact the green building community:

1. Funding for CBECS may be restored–Funding for the Commercial Building Energy which was defunded this year may be restored, paving the way for updating the baseline building energy data at the heart of Energy Star. Division B, Title III on page 44 provides $105,000,000 for the Energy Information Administration. 
2. New energy efficient lighting standards won’t go into effect– The omnibus bill includes a rider which would prevent the new energy efficient lighting standards from going into effect on January 1st, and actually rolls back standards in effect since 2008 for floodlights. 
3. Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program has $0.00 appropriated for 2012.  The loan guarantees are for eligible clean energy projects (i.e., agreeing to repay the borrower’s debt obligation in the event of a default), and by providing direct loans to eligible manufacturers of advanced technology vehicles and components. 
4. Appointment of Administration “Czars” for climate change and urban affairs prohibited.

A full version of the final bill is available here, a summary from the appropriations committee is here.

Related posts:

• Low-Cost Solar in Nevada
• Tax Relief Act Provides Critical Extensions for Cleantech
• The Solar Northeast: Connecticut
• Energy Programs Brace for Deep Spending Cuts After Debt Deal
• China is World Leader In Clean-Tech Investments, Report Says

The results of political compromise — maybe by definition — are seldom satisfactory to anyone. But hasn’t this whole process recently gotten worse than ever before? The ultimate version of the healthcare reform that the Obama administration put through was the product of a hammer and tongs fight from the insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, the enormous money and power that they and their partners brought to the battle. Supported by a political machine that benefited from convincing voters that the whole idea of reform was tantamount to socialism, the bill that was ultimately passed is an utter disappointment — and may ultimately fall apart for any number of reasons, one of which is as basic as a successful constitutional challenge.

Closer to my home in the energy sector, I have to say that cap and trade legislation is a similar sort of disaster in the making. Anyone sincerely wanting to use the public sector to lead the way to a sustainable approach to energy has extremely clearcut tools at his disposal. How about the simplicity of a carbon tax? A feed-in tariff? What’s the matter with just pulling the subsidies on oil? If you really want clean energy, there are abundant and crystal clear ways to do it — instantly.

The solutions are all around us — and yet we’re headed in a direction that really couldn’t possibly work. Cap and trade will certainly make a few rich people even richer by creating yet another sandbox in which our *great* investment bankers can play. But the notion that the efficiencies of a free market will move in such a way to place a natural limit on carbon is so ridiculous that it could have only come from a process in which there is fundamentally no genuine concern for solving the problem at hand — one that is just anxiously looking for another opportunity to bilk a clueless electorate.

Think I’m exaggerating about the laughable ineffectiveness of our current political compromise? Ask yourself how it’s possible that a country of the stature of the United States with its (albeit waning) importance on the world stage still does not have an energy policy. It’s not that we have a bad one; our political environment is so contentious and corrupt that we don’t have one at all.

I hereby join the tens of millions of other garden-variety Americans who would give President Obama a piece of advice.

Sir, if you have any chance of re-election, look for counsel outside the Wall Streeters you have brought to your side. Knock off the compromises that result in the garbage legislation that will otherwise be your legacy. Do what you promised your supporters who brought you to office, and do what’s right by your own wits and the intent of the majority the the people who elected you. What do you have to lose?

Related posts:

• “Corporate Personhood” and Energy Policy
• Is ‘Political Capital’ Fungible?
• China Claims Edge over US in UN Climate Change Talks
• NASA’s Hansen on Waxman-Markey: “it’s just stupidity”
• Making Solar Energy Compromises

Will the political change in Washington spell doom for meaningful progress in clean tech? That’s the question being asked by many since the mid-term election swept a Republican majority into power in the House of Representatives.  With deficit reduction as the rallying cry of the legions that have taken half of Capitol Hill, the survival prospects for clean energy legislation heading into next year seem remote. Make no mistake; Americans have given their consent to a new group of politicians, many of whom still doubt the reality of climate change and have announced their eagerness to reverse course on the major legislative initiatives that have emerged from the Obama White House.

Signaling a drive to use the lame duck Congress to try to preserve the administration’s clean tech plans from the budgetary axe, Vice President Joe Biden last week underscored White House support for a program of federal grants set to expire at the end of the year.

“We have to continue to invest in clean energy, so we’re also calling on Congress to extend a program that has been really successful,” Biden said.

Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), the Section 1603 Treasury Grant Program has been praised by sustainable energy developers for providing readily available infrastructure grants of up to 30 percent of project costs. Originally offering tax credits as a method of attracting financing, the program was altered to supply direct grants to further stimulate demand for investors.

According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) , the program has supplied critical financing for more than 1,100 solar energy systems in 42 states, including 97 solar thermal installations.  Responsible for the creation of thousands of jobs in construction and installation, 1603 has helped to bring 1,000 megawatts of solar-electric capacity online this year, enough power for up to 220,000 homes, the SEIA said.

The 1603 program has been enthusiastically endorsed by the key players in the solar industry.  Testifying before U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works early this year, Robert Gillette, Chief Executive Officer of solar powerhouse First Solar, warned about the consequences of allowing the program to expire “just as it is critically needed to bring projects on line and attract investors for new development projects. It is vital that the grant program be extended though December 31, 2012 in the upcoming Jobs Bill.”

The program has been especially beneficial to wind power projects, which received more than 80 percent of the nearly $2.6 billion in Section 1603 grants that had been disbursed by the first quarter of this year.  The possibility of the demise of a key channel of support for windpower is a matter of grave concern to the industry, which already experienced a 71 percent decline in installations from last year.

Referring to a study by the U.S. Partnership for Renewable Energy Finance, the SEIA cautioned that a refusal to extend the 1603 program could result in a 56% decline in the renewable energy sector as a whole.

“The renewable energy industry is facing a crisis, a market cliff at the end of the year, requiring urgent action,” said Michael Eckhart, President, American Council on Renewable Energy. “The impact of the financial crisis goes on, and if not addressed, the situation risks losing thousands of jobs that were just created.”

Now waddling toward the precipice, the lame duck will be gone before we know it. Perhaps it is time for the climate constituency to rethink its tactics; perhaps it is time to mobilize.

Related posts:

• Green Job Training: U.S. government holding five grant competitions
• Congress: Start The Energy Revolution Without Me
• Talking to Electric Vehicles
• Stimulus Update: Next Generation Electric Vehicles Funds Released
• Energy Programs Brace for Deep Spending Cuts After Debt Deal

Lucky for Americans, information technology doesn’t appear to be owned by any one political party. If it were, Congress would still be squabbling over whether or not to support the Internet and you’d be reading this on paper rather than online.

Not so for energy. Generally speaking, Republicans tend to be pro-fossil fuel, while Democrats typically come down on the side of green energy. This feud – which is a key reason Congress cannot pass an energy bill — confuses me. Does a coal-fired plant represent some conservative ideal not found in wind power? What’s liberal about the squiggly light bulb illuminating my desk?

How can electrons be partisan?

Okay, I know I’m over-generalizing and bound to attract admonishments from readers who will point out where liberals are sometimes pro-brown and conservatives pro-green. But I think we’ve seen the debate come down along party lines enough in the United States that my assumption is fair.

That’s why it was intriguing to see the recent report “Pro-Partisan Power,” a combined effort of think tanks on both sides of the political spectrum: the Brookings Institution, Breakthrough Institute and the American Enterprise Institute.

In the words of the report authors:

Today, few issues in American political life are as polarized as energy policy, with both left and right entrenched in old worldviews that no longer make sense. For the better part of two decades, much of the right has speculated darkly about global warming as a United Nations-inspired conspiracy to destroy American sovereignty, all while passing off chants of “drill, baby, drill” as real energy policy. During the same period much of the left has oscillated incoherently between exhortations that avoiding the end of the world demands shared sacrifice, and contradictory assertions that today’s renewable energy and efficiency technologies can eliminate fossil fuels at no significant cost. All the while, America’s dependence on fossil fuels continues unabated and political gridlock deepens, preventing real progress towards a safer, cleaner, more secure energy system. The extremes have so dominated mainstream thinking on energy that it is easy to forget how much reasonable liberals and conservatives can actually agree on…”

The report goes on two make four key recommendations: 1) Invest in energy science and education; 2) Overhaul the energy innovation system; 3) Reform energy subsidies and use military procurement and competitive deployment incentives to drive price declines; 4) Internalize the cost of energy modernization and ensure investments do not add to the [federal] deficit.
The authors say this can be done at a cost of $25 billion, which can be recovered through small fees on imported oil, electric utility surcharges, a very low price on carbon or other means that will not cause great pain to any one group.

You may or may not agree with the recommendations. But it is hard not to be impressed with how the authors suggest we portray energy – not as a battle between left or right, but as a technology play, as innovation. I suspect this is what Rhone Resch, president and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, meant when he said that solar energy is an industry, not an issue, as reported recently in Renewable Energy World North America Magazine.

Americans left or right can’t argue with innovation. It has brought us things we all like, our cell phones, our downloadable music, air conditioning, meals we can heat in minutes, and voices that tell us which way to drive our cars so that we don’t get lost — which all somehow have managed to remain free of any partisan taint.

The full report is available here.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry’s top magazines and newsletters. She is publisher of the Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Related posts:

• New Global Warming Survey is First to Include Tea Party Members
• Glass Window Solar Power Closer to Reality
• Understanding How Photovoltaic Panels Work
• Stanford Patent Application Covers New Solar Energy Conversion Technology
• Australia Passes Landmark Carbon Tax

The Obama administration, faced with the failure of Congress to pass climate legislation before global talks in Copenhagen next month, may endorse a more limited interim agreement and defer stronger U.S. commitments until next year, according to the Washington Post.

While the scaled-back agreement would fall short of what European leaders wanted from the U.S., administration and congressional leaders say it will at least prevent the global talks from being seen as a failure.

“An interim, operational deal is not meant to be seen as a substitute for a real agreement,” Todd Stern, the U.S. special envoy on climate change, told the Post. “It’s meant to be seen as substantive building blocks to a full, legal agreement, and perhaps the best chance of getting such an agreement.”

The interim pact, outlined last month by Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, would include “political commitments” from key nations on carbon emissions targets and agreements on how much money richer nations would be willing to spend to help developing nations adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo credit: United Nations Photo]

Related posts:

• Kerry Says Cap and Trade Should Take Backseat to Pollution
• United States: UN Role in Climate Talks Should be Diminished
• More Optimism About Pre-Copenhagen Climate Progress
• Global CO2 Emissions Rose by Nearly 2 Percent in 2008
• Beyond Copenhagen: Prepare for Climate Chaos

With just a month remaining before the Copenhagen climate summit, delegates from 192 countries are meeting this week in Barcelona to attempt to lay the groundwork for a climate treaty, with some influential figures saying the United States must be prepared to make firm greenhouse gas reduction commitments if Copenhagen is to be a success.

Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister for climate and energy, who is hosting the Copenhagen meeting, expressed the hopes and frustrations of European Union members when she told delegates, “We have gotten used to the fact in World War I, World War II, the Cold War, the fight against terror, that the world could count on the U.S. to deliver on huge challenges,” she said. “I believe they have to deliver on this challenge. And if we don’t reach agreement in Copenhagen, who will lose the most? One of the most defined losers is American business.”

The Obama administration has declined to commit to a firm target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by a certain date, saying they cannot make a commitment until Congress — which is now considering major climate legislation — passes a bill. That stance does not sit well with many in Europe, who say that unless the U.S. plays a major role in Copenhagen a treaty is unlikely to be signed.

Andreas Carlgren, the environment minister in Sweden who represented the European Union at a news conference on Monday, noted that the EU has committed to reducing emissions 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 85 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Last week, the EU formally calculated that it would cost $110 billion Euros ($150 billion) annually to help the developing world achieve reductions of similar magnitude and make the transition to a clean energy economy. The EU estimated that 22 billion to 50 billion Euros of this amount would come from public funds, and let it be known that its share would be 3 to 22 billion Euros.

The obvious implication of Carlgren’s message was, where is the United States?

“The EU is more than ever fully prepared to reach a deal,” said Carlgren, who then quoted a famous line from an American movie on the Apollo space program. “Failure is not an option.”

Yvo de Boer — who is overseeing the negotiations as executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — also seemed to wag a finger.

“There is quite some ground to cover,” he said. “Adaptation, technology, mitigation, finance. We must deliver substantial reductions. We cannot wait any longer. Do any of you believe it will be easier next year or the year after? You know it is not going to get any easier… Copenhagen must open the door to the common good and close the door to human disaster. Barcelona is essential to putting the architecture in place.”

Many observers have recently been pessimistic that a climate treaty can be signed in Copenhagen, but some delegates in Barcelona said there is still time to set the stage for success in Copenhagen.

“This is the moment of truth when the world decides whether it is committed to solving climate change or just playing theater,” said Kim Carstensen, leader of the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Climate Initiative. “We’ve been dismayed by statements that there is too little time left. We insist that we have the time to develop a binding outcome, to achieve emissions reductions, to show action on developing countries, finance, and institutions. We have the public will.”

At a news conference, Jonathan Pershing — the U.S. deputy special envoy for climate change — pushed back against criticism of the United States. He said “development of a domestic number [on U.S. emissions targets] is under way and we are actively working with the Congress.” Pershing cautioned against deciding “how blame is apportioned. That is not a constructive thing. We think we can get there. The constructive thing is to push forward on an agreement.”

A carbon cap-and-trade bill that would limit greenhouse gas emissions and place a price on carbon has been passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and a similar bill is now being debated by the Senate. Both bills commit to smaller greenhouse gas reductions than the EU.

“All countries are making their own choices about how they do their negotiation,” Pershing said.

Author Keith Schneider is director of media and communications for the U.S. Climate Action Network.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

[photo credit: Greenpeace]

Related posts:

• G8/G20 Summits Ignore Climate Change
• United States: UN Role in Climate Talks Should be Diminished
• Nations Meet on Climate Cash, U.N. Sees Long Haul
• China, South Korea Affirm Commitment to Nuclear at Energy Summit
• Copenhagen Climate Summit Opens With Pleas From Leaders And Citizens

Does that headline grab you? If not, these numbers should:

If that has not grabbed your attention yet, consider that in January of this year, Continental Airlines completed a test flight using a biofuel mixture, which included fuel derived from algae. The test flight yielded a 1.1 percent increase in fuel efficiency compared to a jet engine using traditional jet fuel.

That isn’t exactly a great leap forward, but achieving incremental increases in fuel efficiency coupled with the latest engine technology, as well as use of new materials in aircraft production, such as the Boeing 787, could signal a dynamic shift for the airline industry.Leaders of the G-20 agreed in Pittsburgh to commit to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in the medium-term. While no specifics were mentioned on how this policy will be implemented or how long “medium-term” actually means, this commitment signals a recognition by the G-20 that such subsidies inhibit the growth of clean tech industries.

In addition to the massive investment that Exxon and similarly situated companies have thrown into the algae arena and the policy shift by the G-20, there is growing desire by Congress to stimulate investment in algae.

Senate Bill 1250, currently in the Senate Finance Committee, proposes to add a tax credit for producers of algae-based biofuels. The language of the Algae-based Renewable Fuel Promotion Act of 2009 seeks to add algae-based biofuel as part of the cellulosic biofuel producer tax credit (Internal Revenue Code 40). Under this section, if the legislation were to pass, producers of algae-based biofuels would be entitled to a tax credit of $1.01 for each gallon of qualified algae-based biofuel production.

For purposes of the tax credit, “qualified algae-based biofuel production’ means any algae-based biofuel produced by the taxpayer which is sold to another person or used by the producer: (1) for use in the production of a qualified algae based biofuel mixture (in that other person’s trade or business); (2) for use by the buyer as a fuel in that person’s trade or business; or (3) who sells the algae based biofuel at retail.

The Senate bill also provides producers of algae-based biofuels with bonus depreciation for property which is used in the United State to produce algae-based biofuels.

It seems clear that without the massive capital investment of big oil companies, pilot projects and test facilities to determine whether algae-based biofuels can scaled up would be very difficult to construct. It may also take Big Oil’s lobbying efforts to obtain tax credits for the algae-based biofuel industry.

Moreover, the ultimate success of algae-based biofuels may largely depend on the vast distribution networks of big oil companies. In other words, algae and Big Oil are inextricably linked, for better or for worse.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• Is Algae Biofuel Ready to Take Off?
• Biofuels Takes Off on Commercial Flights
• Algae Biofuel Will Take Many Years To Become a Reality, Says New Report
• Algae Yield Increases With New Technology
• Algae Company Gets Key Distribution Deal

When Congress returns from its summer vacation it will consider legislation that could energize investment in renewable energy projects with an almost “cash for clunkers”-like fervor.

Like the cash for clunkers legislation (and American Idol, and The Office), a feed-in tariff bill would be a ripoff of a European idea modified for American consumption. Bills that would require utilities to pay a premium for renewable power have been tried and failed here before, but the time (and composition of the Congress) may be right for the fight to take flight.

Introduced by Democratic Senators Jay Inslee (WA) and Bill Dellahunt (MA), the bill would guarantee a market for the renewable power projects and would do much to calms fears in today’s skittish investment arena. Feed-in tariffs have been overwhelmingly successful in Germany and Spain, basically creating the solar industries in both those countries.

Because a feed-in tariff promises American jobs and reduces foreign energy dependency, Congress will likely give the idea more of a fair hearing when the leaves begin to turn in DC.

Introduced by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon in May to no fanfare, the Storage Technology of Renewable and Green Energy Act of 2009 (S.1091) would create substantial tax credits for investment in storage projects that would accompany renewable energy projects.

Per the official summary, the bill would amend the IRS code to:

(1) allow a 20% energy tax credit for investment in energy storage property directly connected to the electrical grid (i.e., state systems of generators, transmission lines, and distribution facilities) and designed to receive, store, and convert energy to electricity and deliver such electricity for sale;

(2) make such property eligible for new clean renewable energy bond financing;

(3) allow a 30% energy tax credit for investment in energy storage property used at the site of energy storage; and

(4) allow a 30% nonbusiness energy property tax credit for the installation of energy storage equipment in a principal residence.

As previously reported, the renewable energy industry doesn’t like to admit that storage should be part of their equation, but in many applications the investment can be more than worth the cost. Tax incentives that would make it more cost effective to bundle storage with wind and solar projects would eliminate some of the resistance and just might get more “old guard” energy folks to be open to intermittent power sources. Utilities who are resistant to change would lose their knee-jerk reaction to say that renewable energy isn’t dispatchable.

This bill could help to accelerate the slow reduction in the cost of energy storage per kWh by encouraging more r&d investment.

This article originally appeared on Matter Network.

[photo credit: Flickr]

Related posts:

• The Storage Act: Putting Energy Storage on a Level Playing Field
• Why Energy Storage is Real
• Wind Farms with Compressed Air Energy Storage
• 2010: The Year of Compressed Air Energy Storage?
• Pumped Hydro: Part of the Solution to Our Energy Storage Needs